xjnyc90 wrote: Awwww. Look at Johnny trying his turn at the Watergate Anniversary Right Wing Nitwit Spin Story by trying to "Connect The Dots" between Nixon and Obama. I've read several of them this weekend -- All these snarling little Conservative pundits in their desperate attempts ranging from "Nixon was just misunderstood," to "Well yes he engaged in criminal activity but (insert whine) so did everyone else" Nixon was the Thug's Thug -- the epitome of the Republican Party at it's worst -- paranoid pols intent on steamrolling over the Dems. Greedy, nasty, will stop at nothing - The Repubs revealed then and there the kind of people they are. - Watergate at 40: Obama is the Democrats Nixon

Dear Comrade Big Onion,

I dont excuse Nixon. I never have. One of my earliest political memories was of watching the hearings about Watergate on TV.

As I have said before, Nixon was a troubled man who did many, many wrong things, perhaps even criminal things. We dont know exactly because there will never be a trial.

But whats your excuse for Obama? Whats your excuse for a deliberate attempt by the administration to foster gun violence on the US-Mexican border? Whats your excuse for the deliberate attempt to allow voter intimidation by the Black Panthers? Whats your excuse for a deliberate attacks on religious institutions, supposedly protected by the constitution. Its supposed to be Freedom of Religion.

I live in a country where one of the most prominent clerics and a very reasonable man, Cardinal George of Chicago- who probably knows a bit about Obama- has said:

I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.

Liberals should be outraged by those attacks on religion. But you all stopped being liberal a long time ago. Now you are statist progressives who demand that we all bow down and worship at the altar of government.

I grew up in country that was supposed to be colorblind, and where the laws were meant to apply equally to all.

I live in a country where because of your partisan agenda, if often now prefers to look the other way when your side breaks the law, mutilates the constitution and makes a mockery of the great Republic a generation of giants founded.

Truth 001 wrote: Ransom said once again: Our financial system is still the fundamental flaw of our economy. But its problems are political, not economic.

If you call fighting 2 unfunded wars, passing unfunded tax reduction, allowing our banking system to invest in toxic debt, encouraging our businesses to ship jobs offshore, unwilling to fix our tax system, all on GWB's watch, political than I guess you are correct. It took 8+ years to screw this economy up. It will take at least that to put it back on track no matter who is president. If we elect a president whose only platform is to run on is more of the Bush policies it will be years if at all before we see a balance in the economy. Burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me. -Obama the Genus, Err, Genius*

Dear Comrade Pravda,

It took longer than eight years to screw up our country. Weve been on that path for about 100 years.

And nothing Obama has done is very much different than anything his recent predecessors have done to fix it.

I would not go so far to say that Obama is revolutionary. Hes way too much of a pansy to be brave enough to incite revolution.

Hes more evolutionary.

The real difference is that Obama is more open about what his ends are. He wants a big-government, top-down society with a command economy. He is brave about saying that.

But hes done nothing to change the tax code; hes done little about our banking system except make it more dependent on the federal government- which actually means that Wall Street owns much more of D.C. than they ever have before. Hes done nothing to encourage foreign investment in anything other than US sovereign debt. Hes withdrawn troops from Iraq, but that war was over before Obama was even inaugurated. The one war that Obama supported, the war in Afghanistan, he is losing pretty badly now after we made a quite a bit of progress there.

From out Intelligence correspondent NightWatch this week: Daily reporting from Afghanistan indicates the Taliban have sustained at least 100 attacks and security incidents per day since the start of the spring offensive. That is a high number for a group supposedly on the ropes.

Liberals should be outraged by those attacks on religion. But you all stopped being liberal a long time ago. Now you are statist progressives who demand that we all bow down and worship at the altar of government.

All real liberals are outraged. But of course, we are talking about the meaning of the word liberal, not about the people who do not favor liberty but actually are socialists.

If you read The Road to Serfdom (Readers Digest Condensed Version here), you will see that FA Hayek used the term liberal to denote people who today would be called conservatives in America. That is because Hayek, an Austrian, learned English in America before the meaning of liberal was essentially inverted, according to Safire's New Political Dictionary, in the 1920s. And the meaning of liberal was not changed in Britain, where Hayek wrote Serfdom during WWII.

8
posted on 01/20/2014 1:52:32 AM PST
by conservatism_IS_compassion
("Liberalism is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.